Forum:New Character Infobox
Hello there, I'm Technobliterator, a wiki programmer. I've got a proposal currently, which is to revamp the wiki's current Template:Character. This is the first stage of my process to enhance Mass Effect wiki's programming and templates. New Parameters Well, as linked to above, I've made my own version of our character template with some extra parameters added. I'd just likes to ask whether you think: #Could there be anything else added/removed? #Was it organized well? As in, do some things in the Gameplay header instead belong in Biology? Adding to articles And then there's the thing of adding the new code to every character page. Well, I'm fine with doing to task myself personally; I really do need to edit and I've done bigger edits before, and thankfully, most information that would go in the infobox is on the pages already, so it's just a case of copying that to the infobox but in short. If that isn't gonna happen, I've got a bot which can automatically add to all pages in the character categories; it's just a case of then filling them in. Comments So, fire away. I want to know what you think! :OK... so, here's my comments. You probably won't like them, but remember, you asked for it! Now, as some of you may remember from the last time infoboxes came up, I'm definitely a minimalist when it comes to infoboxes. In my professional opinion, infoboxes should have that certain understated elegance that comes from the fact that, generally speaking, less is more. As such, I find infoboxes crammed with everything but the kitchen sink to be doing a disservice to the articles. In addition, you all know I'm huge on consistency. If it can't be universally applied, I'm probably not a fan of it. Categories that only work for a very few of the characters have no reason to be in the boxes, IMO. So, here's my point-by-point: :*Game (at the top, above the biography section) - needless clutter, should be removed. The articles make abundantly clear, generally even in the ToC, what game or games the character is from. In addition, the category is meaningless for characters appearing in other media, such as books or comics (or the movie we've heard so much about). :*Age - we know ages for a small minority of the characters. As such, this one needs axed for consistency. If we knew everyone's age, sure. But we don't. :*Race - Same as last time I opposed including race. Character races are a no-brainer, and I hate statements of the obvious in info-boxes. :*Gender - several squad members have no gender (Liara, Samara, Morinth, Legion), so this category for them is meaningless. For the rest, gender is pretty obvious. And see above for my feelings on that. :*Family - Same as age. There are many characters with infoboxes we have no family data on, such as Kaidan (other than an unnamed cousin), Jack, Kasumi (other than an unnamed ramen-making grandma), Legion (family being pretty meaningless here), Mordin (other than an unnamed nephew), and Zaeed. Many of the ones we do have info on are similarly unimpressive, such as Miranda (unnamed father), and Garrus (unnamed father and mother, named sibling of indeterminate gender). Given this overall lack of data, I think this category needs axed. :*Location - this one came up last time too... what location do we use? Location aboard the Normandy? Location where first encountered? If the latter, what of characters who can be first encountered in multiple locales? As such, this category needs the axe. :*Appearances - This one is redundant. There's that "game" bit at the top. And then there's the issues I raised with this the first time. :*Class - this one I'm cool with. :*Missions - can't see the point of this one. Most of the characters are involved with several missions. This one therefore seems like clutter. :*Rank/Title - given that this is transitory and prone to change, I'm opposed to including it. We have enough problems as is with people changing the ranks of Ashley and Kaidan or changing Tali's name in the intro paragraphs. We don't need it in the infobox too. :*Role - can't really see what this is supposed to be/mean, so I'm pretty opposed to it. :*Affiliation - again, not quite sure what this is supposed to be. However, given that affiliations are prone to change (Shep being Alliance/Spectre/Cerberus, Garrus being C-Sec/Merc/Cerberus, etc), opposed due to the transitory nature. :*Actor - I'm cool with it provided we ditch the "Technical" heading, and change it to voice actor. :So, basically, out of the current proposal, I'm cool with the following: The image, name, class, and voice actor. The rest, including the headers (Biography, Gameplay, and Technical), are simply unneeded for purposes of consistency and such. SpartHawg948 20:25, July 21, 2011 (UTC) :Something else I'd suggest - you seem, in your original test (the Jacob Taylor one on the Spore wiki) to have used the "ideal" example. To demonstrate many of the reasons I oppose this, I'd suggest trying it with a character like Zaeed, Morinth, Kasumi, or Legion. It's only be testing under other than ideal circumstances, that we can really see if something works. SpartHawg948 20:34, July 21, 2011 (UTC) ::Hmm, I see. Well, the infobox is just used to give the short, basic details to the reader, so I don't see why summing up things quickly in the infobox is a bad idea. ::*Game - I don't see what the problem with it is. ::*Age - If there's no age, then just don't put an age in? It wouldn't have to be in every character page. ::*Race - Well, as much of a no-brainer as they are with humans, it's good to have a link to the page. ::*Location - Yeah I think Location would be their present location in Mass Effet Lore ::*Appearances - This is pretty redundant if Game is used, I just thought about putting it in two locations ::*Missions - It's only for missions that the character offers to Shepard. ::*Rank/Title - Oh, I see. In which case, that shouldn't necessarily be included. ::*Affiliation - Well, like what's done on J&D wiki, when affiliation changes, you just insert a strike through and a affiliation or just add (formerly) next to the original affiliation. ::So yeah, I can understand why it isn't 100% necessary, but I think it's better to present easily accessible information to readers than to force them to read the entire article.--Technobliterator 21:55, July 21, 2011 (UTC) ::Replaced with Legion (as Legion's one of my favourite characters, and was one you suggested)--Technobliterator 22:01, July 21, 2011 (UTC) Hmmm... well, I've made my opinions clear, and the game, age, race, location, appearances, missions, and affiliation are all deal-killers for me. I'd not feel comfortable voting yes for anything including any of them. I'd also like to hear a response to my inputs regarding Gender and Family. No response was given. As to the other inputs, J&D wiki may do it, but strikes through infoboxes just looks shoddy and unprofessional, as does excess use of N/A. If it's N/A, it shouldn't be in the infobox. SpartHawg948 22:17, July 21, 2011 (UTC) :Oh sorry, I forgot to write about Gender and Race. :P Anyway, well tbf it is a no-brainer, but it's just nice to add a little extra to the box for gender. The thing is that some races have an unknown gender, so it's better to clarify. As for race, I think mainly just for the links and easily presented information, really. Excessive use of N?A Hmm... well with our infobox, sadly I can't just leave a parameter empty like I can with the SporeWiki infobox meta template. Because I could just leave it empty if it's not in use. However, we'd only be using N/A a maximum of 2 times, as shown with Legion's infobox. And no, striking is rarely used, so in this case better not.--Technobliterator 23:00, July 21, 2011 (UTC) It was Gender and Family, not Gender and Race. You've now answered Race twice, Family not at all. Now, as to the other points, no race that has thus far been featured in a noteworthy role (i.e. a role where a character would have an infobox) has an "unknown gender". However, as pointed out previously, several squad members have no gender. Thus negating it. And I still think any use of N/A is one use too many. Two is just over-the-top. If it isn't applicable, it shouldn't be included. I think here we see a fundamental difference of philosophies. You say, for example, that "it's just nice to add a little extra to the box for gender". I, on the other hand, don't think adding things just to have a little extra is nice at all. I think sleek infoboxes with minimal content to distract from the article are "nice". This one just has way too much extraneous info in there. SpartHawg948 23:07, July 21, 2011 (UTC) :Hm, I see. I'll respond to Family (sorry); while not all characters have relatives, it's just better to show family members for those who do have family, especially when the infobox is what readers will first read when they come to a page. Showing as much brief information as possible is a better way to go about it than barely showing any. Anyway, I've taken your opinions into account, but I'd like to hear others.--Technobliterator 09:41, July 22, 2011 (UTC) But why is it better to display family info for the handful of characters we have family info on in the infoboxes? What possible relevance does it have? Basically, with this "as much brief information as possible" approach, it seems like you're just trying to make a mini-article within an article. And that's not what infoboxes are for. SpartHawg948 09:48, July 22, 2011 (UTC) :Of course that isn't what I'm trying to do. Hmm... I see what you're getting at. What I'm trying to do is display as much information as possible through the infoboxes, so that people don't have to read the entire article. That, and to be able to provide links to the family of the character. When presenting through an infobox, it's just easier to read and find all basic information needed, as well as to show all the basic facts of the character, and family is one of them. However when you put it this way, I don't think family is likely in the final version. I'd like to have more people's opinions on the infobox.--Technobliterator 11:43, July 25, 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry if my comment is too short, but I simply want to say that I don't think it's necessary to have such detailed infoboxes here. They are fine on, say, anime Wikias, but I'm perfectly fine with the minimalistic ones we have here. --kiadony 11:52, July 25, 2011 (UTC) :I'd have to agree. The current infoboxes are fine, and we don't really need big infoboxes anyway. Arbington 05:15, July 26, 2011 (UTC) All right, so far everyone's generally against. I'd like to see more opinions first.--Technobliterator 13:50, August 16, 2011 (UTC)